search_duplicates

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations indicating read-only or side-effect behavior. The description implies a non-destructive searching operation, but it never explicitly states that the tool does not modify, delete, or reindex anything. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral guarantees.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and to the point, with no redundant phrasing. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second sentence adds useful detail about the mechanism. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lacks important context for an agent: it does not specify the return format, whether results are sorted by similarity, how the max_notes limit is applied, or whether an existing index is required. Given the large sibling tool list and the presence of overlapping search tools, this incomplete context could lead to incorrect tool selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter names and inline descriptions ('folder scope', 'maximum notes to process', 'minimum similarity') provide basic meaning, but they do not explain defaults, value ranges (other than threshold's 0.5-0.99), or how the folder parameter interacts with the search. The schema supplies types and defaults, but the description adds only marginal semantic detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding groups of duplicate or highly similar notes. It uses specific action words ('Find', 'Compares', 'groups') and identifies the resource (notes) and method (embeddings, similarity threshold), making the core function easy to understand.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_similar_notes or search_advanced. It also does not mention any preconditions, such as whether an existing vector index is required, or how this tool differs from other sibling search tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.